Rectification under section 254(2) requires a mistake apparent from the record; an unreasoned recall order cannot stand.

Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record, not a general review of an appellate order. The Orissa HC noted that the Tribunal's recall order did not identify any such mistake, did not engage with the statutory threshold, and relied on an unreasoned acceptance of an affidavit as sufficient proof. A non-speaking rectification order could not justify recall of the earlier appellate decision in full, so the recall was unsustainable and was quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration of whether section 254(2) was in fact attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier order in purported exercise of power under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The power under section 254(2) is confined to rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The impugned order disclosed no consideration of the statutory requirement, recorded no identifiable mistake, and proceeded on an unreasoned acceptance of the affidavit as sufficient proof. A non-speaking order of rectification, without demonstrating how the alleged omission satisfied the threshold of an apparent mistake, could not sustain the recall of the earlier appellate order in its entirety.

Conclusion: The recall order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed, with the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of whether section 254(2) was attracted.

---